Windows Vista has never exactly been a favourite subject among company IT people. Migrating from Windows XP to Windows Vista isn't exactly a worry-free process, and machines that run Windows XP comfortably may have trouble powering Windows vista. As such, adoption of Vista has been slow. Two years after Vista's release, the OS is still struggling in the enterprise sector, according to a Forrester report.

It seems that for DRM there's an everlasting supply of morons who aren't smart enough to do any research or form their own opinion, who just believe the crud that some other moron said.

Let me make it simple...

Too simple. Let's take apart your over-simplification ...

If your hardware and software supports DRM, and if you pay for some DRM content, then you can play the DRM content.

Some DRM content. The particular type that matches your crippled hardware/software. Not all DRM content.

Think "Plays for sure" ... Suuuuuure it does.

If your hardware or software doesn't support DRM, or if you don't pay for DRM content, then you can't play the DRM content.

True enough as far as it goes ... but as I said that is only a way oversimplified part of the story.

The observation that you miss is this ... every piece of equipment out there can play content that has no DRM. That is a massive market.

Only Vista machines can play content that has Vista DRM applied. That is as yet a comparatively tiny market.

As long as Vista remains poorly adopted, a content provider would be insane to offer his content only in the form which has Vista DRM applied. He can sell that only to people who are running Vista. That cuts out the vast majority of the potential market.

Right now, it is far better for a content provider to offer non-DRM content to the wider market, even in the face of piracy, rather than offer it to the very restricted market comprising only people who want to play content only on their Vista machine and nowhere else.

Hence, avoiding Vista helps to keep the Vista-DRM-enabled-equipment target audience small and unattractive to content providers, and hence impedes the onset of universal DRM.

DRM has nothing to do with "non-DRM" media, and if you've got a pirated copy of anything that works without DRM then DRM won't do anything.

Debatable. Very debatable. Using Vista, try to rip a track from a CD you have legally purchased to .mp3 (without any DRM) and send it to your friend who does not run Vista (say runs a Mac or Linux box). See if you can do it so that your friend can hear the result.

If you switch to an OS that doesn't support DRM, then the only difference it makes is that you won't be able to play DRM content that you've paid for.

... and you will not expand the set of machines that are Vista-DRM-capable, and hence help to keep the market for Vista-DRM-content unattractively small.

If you don't like DRM, then don't buy DRM content. If you don't like Microsoft then there's plenty of valid reasons you could use without using misinformed FUD.

-Brendan

Brendan, if you are going to fling accusations of "FUD" at others, make absolutely sure you have told the whole story yourself ... because otherwise you are very likely to get "MS apologist and lapdog" accusations thrown right back at you.

"If your hardware or software doesn't support DRM, or if you don't pay for DRM content, then you can't play the DRM content.

True enough as far as it goes ... but as I said that is only a way oversimplified part of the story.

The observation that you miss is this ... every piece of equipment out there can play content that has no DRM. That is a massive market.

Only Vista machines can play content that has Vista DRM applied. That is as yet a comparatively tiny market.

As long as Vista remains poorly adopted, a content provider would be insane to offer his content only in the form which has Vista DRM applied. He can sell that only to people who are running Vista. That cuts out the vast majority of the potential market.

Right now, it is far better for a content provider to offer non-DRM content to the wider market, even in the face of piracy, rather than offer it to the very restricted market comprising only people who want to play content only on their Vista machine and nowhere else.

Hence, avoiding Vista helps to keep the Vista-DRM-enabled-equipment target audience small and unattractive to content providers, and hence impedes the onset of universal DRM. "

Um, what? If you create the content, then you can encode it with as many different types of DRM you like, and even licence different versions of it at different prices (including licencing a more expensive version without DRM, if you like). Getting rid of "Vista-DRM" just creates an opening for some other DRM. Getting rid of Microsoft entirely just creates an opening for "Linux-DRM" (note: this *already* exists) or "Apple-DRM" or "Adobe-DRM" or some other form of DRM.

"DRM has nothing to do with "non-DRM" media, and if you've got a pirated copy of anything that works without DRM then DRM won't do anything.

Debatable. Very debatable. Using Vista, try to rip a track from a CD you have legally purchased to .mp3 (without any DRM) and send it to your friend who does not run Vista (say runs a Mac or Linux box). See if you can do it so that your friend can hear the result. "

I don't have Vista installed (and wouldn't condone asking someone to create illegal copies of legally purchased CDs either, even if it is just to find out what the problem is and if the problem has anything to do with DRM or not).

"If you switch to an OS that doesn't support DRM, then the only difference it makes is that you won't be able to play DRM content that you've paid for.

... and you will not expand the set of machines that are Vista-DRM-capable, and hence help to keep the market for Vista-DRM-content unattractively small. "

Why do you care if other people have the freedom to choose "Vista-DRM" if they want to?

Oh - and just so you know; you'll have to throw your VHS tape player away because I decided you don't deserve to be able to hire a movie the old fashioned way.

Brendan, if you are going to fling accusations of "FUD" at others, make absolutely sure you have told the whole story yourself ... because otherwise you are very likely to get "MS apologist and lapdog" accusations thrown right back at you.

I understood that before I posted.

In general, what annoys me about "anti-DRM advocates" (DRM detractors?) is when they start telling others not to use Vista because the DRM will make their tinfoil hat go rusty, and that the aliens will be able to read their thoughts because of this (and other irrational paranoia). Of course I'm not suggesting anyone here has said anything irrational (misinformed perhaps, but not irrational) - I'm just explaining why "anti-DRM advocates" annoy me.

Debatable. Very debatable. Using Vista, try to rip a track from a CD you have legally purchased to .mp3 (without any DRM) and send it to your friend who does not run Vista (say runs a Mac or Linux box). See if you can do it so that your friend can hear the result.

Odd. I took up on your challenge, and it all worked out just fine.

I just ripped my legally purchased copy of "This Is Alphabeat" using Windows Media Player in Windows 7, copied the files to a Micro SD card, inserted the Micro SD card into my Linux (Ubuntu) machine... and what do you know? The .mp3s worked just fine.

"Debatable. Very debatable. Using Vista, try to rip a track from a CD you have legally purchased to .mp3 (without any DRM) and send it to your friend who does not run Vista (say runs a Mac or Linux box). See if you can do it so that your friend can hear the result.

Odd. I took up on your challenge, and it all worked out just fine. I just ripped my legally purchased copy of "This Is Alphabeat" using Windows Media Player in Windows 7, copied the files to a Micro SD card, inserted the Micro SD card into my Linux (Ubuntu) machine... and what do you know? The .mp3s worked just fine. Lemur2, your FUD goes beyond FUD. You're a liar. "

Read again what my original post said, where you quoted it.

Read it again.

Now point out the lie.

Firstly ... my post merely asks people to try this. I have encountered some situations/circumstances where this did not work for other people.

Now you have claimed a situation where you claim it works for you ... but unfortunately for you you could not actually do the experiment that I asked you to try. My very first step was ... and I quote ... "Using Vista".

Using Vista, try to rip a track from a CD you have legally purchased to .mp3 (without any DRM) and send it to your friend who does not run Vista (say runs a Mac or Linux box). See if you can do it so that your friend can hear the result.

You cannot DRM an mp3, any computer-literate person should know that. MP3 is both an audio codec and its corresponding container format, neither of which support DRM protection of any kind. As soon as you put a different type of audio codec, or try to encrypt the audio inside the mp3 container, it's no longer an mp3, and nothing will play it. I don't like DRM either, but your FUD tactics don't help the situation.

MP3 can be drm'ed , that's why normal mp3 player that follow mp3 standards cannot play them once that they have been encrypted. The MP3 is still in there , it's the encryption decoder that is missing and is the problem.

That's why it's not a Microsoft MP3 problem and a DRM problem.

Denying reality seem to be your problem. FUD as no basis on reality , this case is base don reality and when the **WINDOWS** press and experts report on the problem , your the one lying and fudding ...

Debatable. Very debatable. Using Vista, try to rip a track from a CD you have legally purchased to .mp3 (without any DRM) and send it to your friend who does not run Vista (say runs a Mac or Linux box). See if you can do it so that your friend can hear the result.

OK. I just now used Vista to rip a track from one of my legally purchased CDs (I don't have any illegal ones) to an .mp3 (via WMP), transferred it to my Mac, and played it with no problems.

lemur, normally you're more clever with your anti-Microsoft FUD. It's not like you to issue a challenge that's so easy to perform and so easily disproves your anti-Microsoft theories.

This challenge was so weak, I have to assume that you're totally ignorant wrt Vista, DRM, and even .mp3s. Of course, being totally ignorant on a topic has never stopped you from spreading anti-Microsoft FUD before (many times supported by lots of irrelevant links that you hope nobody bothers to click). But try harder next time; this latest effort was pitiful.

"Debatable. Very debatable. Using Vista, try to rip a track from a CD you have legally purchased to .mp3 (without any DRM) and send it to your friend who does not run Vista (say runs a Mac or Linux box). See if you can do it so that your friend can hear the result.

OK. I just now used Vista to rip a track from one of my legally purchased CDs (I don't have any illegal ones) to an .mp3 (via WMP), transferred it to my Mac, and played it with no problems. lemur, normally you're more clever with your anti-Microsoft FUD. It's not like you to issue a challenge that's so easy to perform and so easily disproves your anti-Microsoft theories. This challenge was so weak, I have to assume that you're totally ignorant wrt Vista, DRM, and even .mp3s. Of course, being totally ignorant on a topic has never stopped you from spreading anti-Microsoft FUD before (many times supported by lots of irrelevant links that you hope nobody bothers to click). But try harder next time; this latest effort was pitiful. "

My post did ask to try it ... I did not say it would or would not work ... it seems very much to depend on the source of the original content.

My second-hand information was: (1) Someone (on an online forum similar to this one) had used Vista to make a fair-use extract from a CD that they legally owned and had sent me that extract ... and I would have required to use Vista and obtain a permission certificate from a Microsoft server in order to play it, and (2) Someone has asked me why they can't use their new Vista laptop to extract tracks from CDs they legally owned in order to play these tracks on their car's .mp3 player system, when they can do exactly that same operation using the same methods on their older XP desktop system.

Obviously, from your anectdote, Vista's Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) is broken, because it doesn't seem to apply the same "end-user restricting rules" consistently all the time.

Finally ... I note you completely ignore the main objection to Vista DRM ... which is about the inherent binding of DRMed content to a particular platform (and hence software provider), that would (if allowed to become prevalent amongst media players) create a monopoly for reproduction of digital media content.